Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
IP
In the Matter of the Application of Harry VISSERING
24 F.2d 1013·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit·1928
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
In the Matter of the Application of Harry VISSERING.
Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted January 11, 1928.
Decided March 5, 1928.
No. 2006.
Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
H. H. Benjamin, of Chicago, Ill., and J. T. Basseehes, of New York City, for appellant.
T. A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C., for Com’r of Patents.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice; VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice; and SMITH, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.
[MAJORITY — VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.]
VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.
This appeal is from the Commissioner of Patents rejecting appellant’s application for a patent for a car brake step described in the following claim: “1. A brake step adapted to be secured to a car body and having a shelf portion adapted to act as a rest for the foot and provided with an abutment portion comprising a plurality of continuous spaced pressed portions.”
The step is Z-shaped in cross section, and supported by V-shaped brackets. It is made of pressed sheet metal provided with corrugations on the upper surface to prevent the user from slipping.
In the opinions of the tribunals of the Patent Office, the construction upon which the patent is sought is clearly pointed out in three references relied upon, and from an examination of the prior art we agree with the Commissioner “that applicant has done no more than pick out one feature from one patent, another from another, and so on, and unite them in a single structure. The step possesses no new or improved function as a result of such assemblage of old features.”
The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.